Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

On 2/4/06, dshepx <dshep@gis.net> wrote:
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> --- Ethan wrote:
> >
> > Here's the above text, in Unicode:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Since this message is plain text, there is no font information
> > whatsoever in the message.
>
> Your message came to my browser as intended, in Shavian, but here
> is an interesting detail. The font did not look familiar so I transferred
> it to a word-processing document which refused to identify it. However,
> comparing it other text samples it appears to be Ghoti 2. Is this correct?

He can't tell you.

He sent it in plain text, with no font information whatsoever, so it's
up to *your* computer/email program/browser/word processor to pick a
font that contains the necessary characters.

Just as I can't tell you what font *these* letters appear in for you
-- for example, when I read it in Gmail, it appears in Arial; in
Fastmail.FM, Courier New; and in Pegasus Mail at home, Verdana (since
that's how I configured that last program). The font is not inherent
in the text.

Cheers,
·𐑓𐑦𐑤𐑦𐑐
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>

>>>>Hi Scott
>>>>I agree wholeheartedly.
>>>>These spelling conventions ensure that some of the most
>>>>used words are written consistently and with a minimum
>>>>number of letters.
>>>>Shavian was designed to require less effort to write, having
>>>>many of the benefits of a Shorthand, while preserving clear
>>>>easily recognizable letter shapes.
>>>>
>>>>
I agree with the foregoing. If one sets out to design a wholly new
alphabet, it would hardly make sense to make it more difficult and time
consuming to write than the existing alphabet.

>>>I don't.
>>>
>>>The use of abbreviations, well, these aren't even abbreviations,
>>>they are, what is the word?--logograms, like the ampersand (&),
>>>and in my opinion they deter, detract, and diverge from the basic
>>>phonemic structure of Shavian, where every word can or should
>>>be quickly and easliy identified by its vocalic components, and for
>>>what? A savings of one letter per word, a mere key-stroke. A loss
>>>of clarity for a marginal gain in efficiency. To my eye they are as
>>>crude as birds + bees or I (heart) U. If something more like a
>>>shorthand is wanted then surely Quickscript/Kwikskrip would be
>>>the better choice.
>>>
>>>
An aside: Read spelled it "Quikscript," (presumably as an
acknowledgement that the "c" was superfluous in TO) not "Quickscript"
nor "Kwikskrip." This may seem a small thing, but since this forum's
discussion frequently involves debating what Shavian spelling
conventions should be, those of you who mention Quikscript, ought to
know enough to know how to spell it.

Here is part of what Read had to say about spelling:

It is popularly assumed that a phonetic alphabet is useless unless every
spelling is a precise representation of speech, without reservations or
conveniences. Whose speech, then, is to be so precisely represented? The
beginner's instinct says: My own, the only English I can represent with
conviction. 'It's how everyone here speaks'....

But as soon as word are not to vary in their spelling, how should we
spell 'the'? We are faced at once with making an arbitrary decision. To
spell 'the' with the vowel used in '_the_n' is phonetically misleading.
The natural pronunciation where a vowel-sound follows is as in
'swar_thy_' ('the aim, the oak'). But where a consonant follows we say
'thuh' as in 'o_the_r' (the gun, the bird). Our decision, though
arbitrary, can at least be convenient; and in this case the solution
which, from experience, satisfies all writers and all occasions, is to
omit the variable vowel entirely. This is labour-saving, and _in
context_ the remaining consonant can mean nothing else than 'the'.
Contant spelling results, without violence to Communication. /Quikscript
Manual/, p. 6-7


>>With most phonemic alphabets, I would agree, but Shavian's no.1
>>guiding principle was EFFICIENCY, not absolute phonemic consistency.
>>The four most common words given single letters in Shavian are used
>>so much in English writing that there can be a considerable space
>>saving by abbreviating them. You only have to look at "txt spk" to
>>realise that people love abbreviations for efficiency's sake.
>>
>>Hugh B
>>
>>
>
>
>I don't love abbreviations. They have their uses in special places
>but don't belong in considered text, I don't think.
>
>I also think the question to be pondered is whether Shavian is
>(or was meant to be, or should be or could be) a shorthand or a
>replacement alphabet? I thought the latter was Shaw's wish, not
>the former. I am though not at all certain that Kingsley Read felt
>that way, as his later alterations did move in the direction of
>shorthand, it seems to me, which is why if efficiency alone is
>desired then Quickscript would I think be the better choice �EUR"�EUR"
>I certainly think some of the letters have been simplified in
>Quickscript which makes them easier and quicker to write, a
>desirable feature of shorthand after all.
>
My (reading) knowledge of shorthands is that for them to be fast enough
to catch speech on the fly, the best stenographers tend to develop a
system of abbreviations which they use in addition to the standard signs
of the system they are using. This tends to result in a script that
even other stenographers using the same basic system would have trouble
reading. Clearly, this is in a different class from alphabets intended
for normal writing and general usage as a full representation of a
language such as Shavian or Quikscript are. But, I agree, that
Quikscript letters, while not having the stark beauty of Shavian, are
simpler and easier to write, which, certainly, cannot be a bad thing for
any alphabet.

[snip]

>The chief attraction to me of Read's original opus is its beauty.
>A page of Shavian is stunning to behold. Add to that a rational
>construction, by which I mean the paired system of related
>elements (and its almost, not quite but easily remedied internal
>consistency which we have debated before), and you have a truly
>radical, rational, workable, pleasing alternative to our current
>alphabet �EUR"�EUR" and I thought that was what Shaw had in mind. An
>alphabet, or peebiteedi, to label Shavian by its first four letters,
>that perhaps, just perhaps, in its dual appeal to both mind and
>eye, has a future.
>
>
>It seems to me, that to use single letters devoid of phonemic
>content as word substitutes is to unnecessarily contradict the
>basic nature of Shavian for limited and questionable gain, and
>to sink to the level of NuRite as used on hand-held devices:
>"R U coming? C U soon, Dont B L8!"
>
>
A "th" symbol standing in place of "the" is not use of a single letter
"devoid of phonemic content" since the symbol represents an English
phoneme. It just omits the vowel content, which must be inferred.

Here is what Read had to say:

Writing and Reading

We must study these as two aspects of one function - Communication.
Though alphabets are better when they allow a more consistent spelling,
they are hardly 'best' without also being inherently more writable
and/or readable. The adult reader does not go through the childish
processes of breaking words down into letters, reassembling their
several sounds into pronunciations, and at length recognizing these as
meanings. Indeed he does the reverse, instantly recognizing each
word-unit as a meaning, and then pronouncing it how he likes. This he
must do to read at tolerable speed and to grasp the connected meanings
of a sentence.

We are therefore concerned with the function of letters in building
uniquely shaped outlines, each of which is an ideogram, a logogram, a
word-graph - call it what you will. It only needs in the end to be
conveniently simple to write and familiar to read 'automatically'. We
write the date '1966' economically and read it instantly; we fumble over
the unfamiliar 'MCMLXVI'. We read '?50 + 10%' and pronounce it, without
spellings. We are content with familiar contractions such as '--- & Co
Ltd'. All the practised reader requires or values is a well known graph.
Use will make any graph familiar, any spelling readable; but the
_getting used to_ words is eased by systematic spelling. /Quikscript
Manual/, p. 5.

Surely, you are not suggesting that no abbreviations should be used in
"considered" writing, whatever that is. Do you write "Mister" or "Mr,"
"Doctor" or "Dr."? Do either of those examples strike you as equivalent
to the barbarity of "C U soon"? Perhaps, the difference is familiarity,
as Read said.

Paige

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Paige Gabhart wrote:

> ... If one sets out to design a wholly new alphabet, it would
> hardly make sense to make it more difficult and time
> consuming to writethan the existing alphabet.

I really don’t feel an additional key-stroke per common word, a mere
finger-flick, is more difficult or time consuming --- not on any
scale worth
mentioning; i would rather preserve phonemic consistency and clarity
of presentation. To me this is simpler. The less to learn and remember,
the better. I of course fully understand that all members of this group
have already learned Shavian as it is, and would consider the above
recommendation unnecessary, but I am thinking of the day when many
more might be induced to consider the possibility of using an
alternative
alphabet, and to this end, i submit, the chances of acceptance are
improved
if the alphabet in question is honed to the greatest possible degree of
self-evident order, reason, and beauty. Another member of this group,
interested in spelling reform, has pointed out that practically all
"experts"
in the field regard spelling reform, in whatever form, as absurd and a
waste of time. I fear that this is true, about the opinions of
experts, that is.
Only something really convincing, free of objection, simple and
appealing,
attractive and easy to learn and use, has any chance of success.

> Read spelled it "Quikscript," (presumably as an acknowledgement
> that the "c" was superfluous in TO) not "Quickscript" nor
"Kwikskrip."

Quikscript, thank you, I shall try to be more careful in future.
Curious though
that if /c/ was thought superfluous (or redundant), why not /q/?

> Here is part of what Read had to say about spelling:

> It is popularly assumed that a phonetic alphabet is useless unless
every
> spelling is a precise representation of speech, without
reservations or
> conveniences. Whose speech, then, is to be so precisely
represented?...

I am not familiar with the Quikscript manual, a circumstance I should
correct, but I
am surprised that Read would here imply that his alphabet was to be
classed as
a phonetic rather than a phonemic one, with the conclusion that the
use of
abbreviations would therefore prevent disputes. This would be a
correct observation
if Shavian were indeed phonetic, Phonemic representation however,
which I have
always thought to be the principle that Shavian adhered to, allows
without problem
a considerable spread in pronunciation, as found in the distinction
between British
and American /o/ in “go”, and /ou/ in “bought”, where Shavian \O\
respectively \Y\
can easily satisfy either speech-form, as there is no confusion---
everyone substitutes
their own pronunciation. This ought to apply to the short-o \o\ as well.

>Clearly, (shorthand) is in a different class from alphabets intended
>for normal writing and general usage as a full representation of a
>language such as Shavian or Quikscript are. But, I agree, that
>Quikscript letters, while not having the stark beauty of Shavian, are
>simpler and easier to write, which, certainly, cannot be a bad
thing for
>any alphabet.

This is the question, Is Shavian intended entirely for efficiency---a
shorthand
in other words---or is it a truly comprehensive alternative writing
system,
balancing efficiency against other factors? I thought the latter.

>A "th" symbol standing in place of "the" is not use of a single letter
>"devoid of phonemic content" since the symbol represents an English
>phoneme. It just omits the vowel content, which must be inferred.

But it is a single letter in Shavian, where the abbreviation occurs.
And to infer
the existence of sounds is to depart from the spirit of a phonemic
language,
does it not?

> We are therefore concerned with the function of letters in building
> uniquely shaped outlines ...
> All the practised reader requires or values is a well known graph.
> Use will make any graph familiar, any spelling readable; but the
> "getting used to" words is eased by systematic spelling.
> /Quikscript Manual/, p. 5.

This is all perfectly sensible, except that Read here appears to me to
be undercutting the very reason for promoting an alternative alphabet
at all. After all, we are at present thoroughly "familiar" with our
"well-known" graphs, and got used to them long ago.

>Surely, you are not suggesting that no abbreviations should be used
>in "considered" writing, whatever that is.

> Paige

I think the meaning there is obvious enough.

> Do you write "Mister" or "Mr," "Doctor" or "Dr."? Do either of those
> examples strike you as equivalent to the barbarity of "C U soon"?
> Perhaps, the difference is familiarity, as Read said.

Ha -- got me there. A clear oversight on my part -- even I like those
abbreviations, and there is no good reason not to use them . However,
there
is the restriction that these always occur together with personal
names, not
usually otherwise, as in “This is Mr Tom Smith Jr, our junior
partner”. Am I
missing any others?

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- dshep wrote:

A lot, but forgot to ask Paige if he submitted his post in
some special way, as it appears (in my browser at least)
as much broader than all the others --- literally. To read
it I must scroll laterally to a width of double or triple the
normal frame width, and unlike the others, which may be
squeezed narrower if desired, his would permit no
manipulation.

In addition, my reply, sent by e-mail, converted all apostrophes
to strange symbols, something that had not happened before.
Weird.

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Scott Harrison <nik@...> wrote:


> For the four words we mention, do not consider them abbreviations.
> Consider them the official spelling.

There is no official spelling, the previous attempt to list the 200
most common words demonstrated that.

> The reason these shortcuts are being used is because they can be
> used.
> --
> ·ð`•ð`'ð`ªð`` ·ð`£ð`ºð`¦ð`•ð`©ð`¯ Scott Harrison

I like that argument, and shall use it when I submit posts written in a
divergent manner.

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
>
> On 2/4/06, dshepx <dshep@...> wrote:

> > Your message came to my browser as intended, in Shavian, but here
> > is an interesting detail. The font did not look familiar so I transferred
> > it to a word-processing document which refused to identify it. However,
> > comparing it other text samples it appears to be Ghoti 2. Is this correct?
>
> He can't tell you.
>
> He sent it in plain text, with no font information whatsoever, so it's
> up to *your* computer/email program/browser/word processor to pick a
> font that contains the necessary characters.
>
> Just as I can't tell you what font *these* letters appear in for you
> -- for example, when I read it in Gmail, it appears in Arial; in
> Fastmail.FM, Courier New; and in Pegasus Mail at home, Verdana (since
> that's how I configured that last program). The font is not inherent
> in the text.
>
> Cheers,
> ·ð`"ð`¦ð`¤ð`¦ð`
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

I see. Thank you. Curious though that my browser chose in some random
way to display Ghoti, which had not been selected, but was merely one of
many lying dormant in my font library.

Were you able to see those messages written in Androcles in Shavian, or
do they only appear on Macs?

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- dshep submitted:

A posting full of strange symbols replacing
punctuation marks. This (I hope) is a correction.

..................................................................

> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> --- Paige Gabhart wrote:
>
> ... If one sets out to design a wholly new
> alphabet, it would hardly make sense to make
> it more difficult and time consuming to write
> than the existing alphabet.

I really don't feel an additional key-stroke per
common word, a mere mere finger-flick, is more
difficult or time consuming --- not on any scale
worth mentioning; I would rather preserve phonemic
consistency and clarity of presentation. To me this
is simpler. The less to learn and remember, the
better. I of course fully understand that all
members of this group have already learned
Shavian as it is,and would consider the above
recommendation unnecessary, but I am thinking
of the day when many more might be induced to
consider the possibility of using an alternative
alphabet, and to this end, I submit, the chances
of acceptance are improved if the alphabet in
question is honed to the greatest possible degree
of self-evident order, reason, and beauty. Another
member of this group, interested in spelling reform,
has pointed out that practically all "experts" in
the field regard spelling reform, in whatever form,
as absurd and a waste of time. I fear that this is
true, about the opinions of experts, that is. Only
something really convincing, free of objection,
simple and appealing, attractive and easy to learn
and use, has any chance of success.

> Read spelled it "Quikscript," (presumably as an
> acknowledgement that the "c" was superfluous
> in TO) not "Quickscript" nor "Kwikskrip."

Quikscript, thank you, I shall try to be more careful
in future. Curious though that if /c/ was thought
superfluous (or redundant), why not /q/?

> Here is part of what Read had to say about spelling:
>
> It is popularly assumed that a phonetic alphabet
> is useless unless every spelling is a precise
> representationof speech, without reservations
> or conveniences. Whose speech, then, is to be
> so precisely represented?...

I am not familiar with the Quikscript manual, a
circumstance I should correct, but I am surprised
that Read would here imply that his alphabet was
to be classed as a phonetic rather than a phonemic
one, with the conclusion that the use of abbreviations
would therefore prevent disputes. This would be a
correct observation if Shavian were indeed phonetic.
Phonemic representation however, which I have always
thought to be the principle that Shavian adhered to,
allows without problm a considerable spread in
pronunciation, as found in the distinction between
British and American /o/ in "go", and /ou/ in "bought",
where Shavian \O\ respectively \Y\ can easily satisfy
either speech-form, as there is no confusion ---
everyone substitutes their own pronunciation.
This ought to apply to the short-o \o\ as well.

> Clearly, (shorthand) is in a different class from
> alphabets intended for normal writing and general
> usage as a full representation of alanguage such as
> Shavian or Quikscript are. But, I agree, that Quikscript
> letters, while not having the stark beauty of Shavian,
> are simpler and easier to write, which, certainly,
> cannot be a bad thing for any alphabet.

This is the question, Is Shavian intended entirely for
efficiency ---a shorthand in other words --- or is it
a truly comprehensive alternative writing system,
balancing efficiency against other factors? I thought the
latter.

> A "th" symbol standing in place of "the" is not use of a
> a single letter "devoid of phonemic content" since the
> symbol represents an English phoneme. It just omits
> the vowel content, which must be inferred.

But it is a single letter in Shavian, where the abbreviation
occurs. And to infer the existence of sounds is to depart
from the spirit of a phonemic alphabet, does it not?

> We are therefore concerned with the function of letters
> in building uniquely shaped outlines ...
> All the practised reader requires or values is a well
> known graph. Use will make any graph familiar, any
> spelling readable; but the "getting used to" words is
> eased by systematic spelling. /Quikscript Manual/, p. 5.

This is all perfectly sensible, except that Read here
appears to me to be undercutting the very reason for
promoting an alternative alphabet at all. After all, we
are at present thoroughly "familiar" with our "well-
known" graphs, and got used to them long ago.

> Surely, you are not suggesting that no abbreviations
> should be used in "considered" writing, whatever that is.
>
> Paige

I think the meaning there is obvious enough.

> Do you write "Mister" or "Mr," "Doctor" or "Dr."? Do
> eitherof those examples strike you as equivalent to the
> barbarityof "C U soon"? Perhaps, the difference is
> familiarity, as Read said.

Ha -- got me there. A clear oversight on my part -- even
I like those abbreviations, and there is no good reason not
to use them. However, there is the restriction that these
always occur together with personal names, not usually
otherwise, as in "This is Mr Tom Smith Jr, our junior partner".
Am I missing any others?

regards again,
dshep

On 2/6/06, dshepx <dshep@...> wrote:
> Curious though that my browser chose in some random
> way to display Ghoti, which had not been selected, but was merely one of
> many lying dormant in my font library.

*nods* I have no idea what procedure browsers use to pick a font that
contains the letters they'd like to display from among the many
installed on the computer.

> Were you able to see those messages written in Androcles in Shavian, or
> do they only appear on Macs?

The one by Kirk Desimus, for example? I could see that in Shavian, yes
-- presumably because I have a font called "Androcles" installed on my
(Windows XP) system, and that font is a Shavian font.

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

Outlook tells me your digital signature is invalid or not trusted... Who are you and what have you done with Scott?? ;-)



_____

From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Harrison
Sent: 06 February 2006 09:59
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Re: Shavian Spelling Conventions





On Feb 6, 2006, at 07:21, dshepx wrote:





--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,

--- Scott Harrison <nik@...> wrote:





For the four words we mention, do not consider them abbreviations.

Consider them the official spelling.



There is no official spelling, the previous attempt to list the 200

most common words demonstrated that.





From "Notes on the Spelling" section 3:



WORD-SIGNS. The design chosen to be the Shaw Alphabet has the characteristic feature incorporated in it of four 'word-signs' for the four most frequently occurring words of the language - the, of, and, to (it is estimated that one word in six is either the or of or and or to). These word-signs each consist of a single letter - that for the single sounds of th, v, n and t respectively. The word-signs save valuable time and space.



And also in section 4 it says that a and an are to use the same vowel sound (the schwa) and not their fuller forms. Thus, you would spell them 𐑩 and 𐑩𐑯.



About as official as it gets.



Read some of my transliterations and you can see if you agree with the way I have done thousands of other words.





The reason these shortcuts are being used is because they can be

used.

--

·›∆`›∆`'›∆`ª›∆`` ·›∆`£›∆`º›∆`œ›∆`›∆`©›∆`¯ Scott Harrison



I like that argument, and shall use it when I submit posts written in a

divergent manner.



--

·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑 ·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott Harrison

I would ask at this point... does this all really matter?

Hugh B

> -----Original Message-----
> From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of dshepx
> Sent: 06 February 2006 07:40
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: Shavian Spelling Conventions
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> --- dshep submitted:
>
> A posting full of strange symbols replacing
> punctuation marks. This (I hope) is a correction.
>
> ..................................................................
>
> > --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> > --- Paige Gabhart wrote:
> >
> > ... If one sets out to design a wholly new
> > alphabet, it would hardly make sense to make
> > it more difficult and time consuming to write
> > than the existing alphabet.
>
> I really don't feel an additional key-stroke per
> common word, a mere mere finger-flick, is more
> difficult or time consuming --- not on any scale
> worth mentioning; I would rather preserve phonemic
> consistency and clarity of presentation. To me this
> is simpler. The less to learn and remember, the
> better. I of course fully understand that all
> members of this group have already learned
> Shavian as it is,and would consider the above
> recommendation unnecessary, but I am thinking
> of the day when many more might be induced to
> consider the possibility of using an alternative
> alphabet, and to this end, I submit, the chances
> of acceptance are improved if the alphabet in
> question is honed to the greatest possible degree
> of self-evident order, reason, and beauty. Another
> member of this group, interested in spelling reform,
> has pointed out that practically all "experts" in
> the field regard spelling reform, in whatever form,
> as absurd and a waste of time. I fear that this is
> true, about the opinions of experts, that is. Only
> something really convincing, free of objection,
> simple and appealing, attractive and easy to learn
> and use, has any chance of success.
>
> > Read spelled it "Quikscript," (presumably as an
> > acknowledgement that the "c" was superfluous
> > in TO) not "Quickscript" nor "Kwikskrip."
>
> Quikscript, thank you, I shall try to be more careful
> in future. Curious though that if /c/ was thought
> superfluous (or redundant), why not /q/?
>
> > Here is part of what Read had to say about spelling:
> >
> > It is popularly assumed that a phonetic alphabet
> > is useless unless every spelling is a precise
> > representationof speech, without reservations
> > or conveniences. Whose speech, then, is to be
> > so precisely represented?...
>
> I am not familiar with the Quikscript manual, a
> circumstance I should correct, but I am surprised
> that Read would here imply that his alphabet was
> to be classed as a phonetic rather than a phonemic
> one, with the conclusion that the use of abbreviations
> would therefore prevent disputes. This would be a
> correct observation if Shavian were indeed phonetic.
> Phonemic representation however, which I have always
> thought to be the principle that Shavian adhered to,
> allows without problm a considerable spread in
> pronunciation, as found in the distinction between
> British and American /o/ in "go", and /ou/ in "bought",
> where Shavian \O\ respectively \Y\ can easily satisfy
> either speech-form, as there is no confusion ---
> everyone substitutes their own pronunciation.
> This ought to apply to the short-o \o\ as well.
>
> > Clearly, (shorthand) is in a different class from
> > alphabets intended for normal writing and general
> > usage as a full representation of alanguage such as
> > Shavian or Quikscript are. But, I agree, that Quikscript
> > letters, while not having the stark beauty of Shavian,
> > are simpler and easier to write, which, certainly,
> > cannot be a bad thing for any alphabet.
>
> This is the question, Is Shavian intended entirely for
> efficiency ---a shorthand in other words --- or is it
> a truly comprehensive alternative writing system,
> balancing efficiency against other factors? I thought the
> latter.
>
> > A "th" symbol standing in place of "the" is not use of a
> > a single letter "devoid of phonemic content" since the
> > symbol represents an English phoneme. It just omits
> > the vowel content, which must be inferred.
>
> But it is a single letter in Shavian, where the abbreviation
> occurs. And to infer the existence of sounds is to depart
> from the spirit of a phonemic alphabet, does it not?
>
> > We are therefore concerned with the function of letters
> > in building uniquely shaped outlines ...
> > All the practised reader requires or values is a well
> > known graph. Use will make any graph familiar, any
> > spelling readable; but the "getting used to" words is
> > eased by systematic spelling. /Quikscript Manual/, p. 5.
>
> This is all perfectly sensible, except that Read here
> appears to me to be undercutting the very reason for
> promoting an alternative alphabet at all. After all, we
> are at present thoroughly "familiar" with our "well-
> known" graphs, and got used to them long ago.
>
> > Surely, you are not suggesting that no abbreviations
> > should be used in "considered" writing, whatever that is.
> >
> > Paige
>
> I think the meaning there is obvious enough.
>
> > Do you write "Mister" or "Mr," "Doctor" or "Dr."? Do
> > eitherof those examples strike you as equivalent to the
> > barbarityof "C U soon"? Perhaps, the difference is
> > familiarity, as Read said.
>
> Ha -- got me there. A clear oversight on my part -- even
> I like those abbreviations, and there is no good reason not
> to use them. However, there is the restriction that these
> always occur together with personal names, not usually
> otherwise, as in "This is Mr Tom Smith Jr, our junior partner".
> Am I missing any others?
>
> regards again,
> dshep
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>